Diversity, federalism and the nineteenth-century liberals

Abstract

This paper provides an argument in favour of federal institutional design on the basis that it is more congenial to the preservation and promotion of normatively desirable societal diversity than its unitary alternative. Seeking inspiration in the work of three of the most influential liberal thinkers of the nineteenth century: John Stuart Mill; Alexis de Tocqueville; and Lord Acton, I construct a novel case for federalism that focuses on the inherent benefits of a dual/multi-layered governmental structure. Section one argues for the value of diversity, stating that it can both improve the authenticity of individually exercised autonomy, and improve the quality of individually espoused moral views. Section two considers the potential dangers posed by the unitary state to the flourishing of diversity through the centralisation of key institutions. Section three shows how the federal model sidesteps these pitfalls, and offers a more auspicious environment for the cultivation and enjoyment of diversity.

Keywords:

• diversity
• federalism
• liberalism
• autonomy
• multi-layered government
• Mill
• Tocqueville
• Acton

Acknowledgements

This paper was presented at the MANCEPT workshops in political theory 2013, as part of a panel on the social and political thought of J.S. Mill. My thanks to all those who attended and provided feedback on that occasion. Special thanks go to Helder De Schutter, Jean-François Grégoire and two anonymous reviewers for CRISPP for their detailed and insightful comments.

Notes

1. The argument offered here can be seen as applying both to multinational federations – those that seek to institutionally represent the presence of more than one sub-state national group – and territorial federations – those concerned merely with the effective administration of a large population and/or expansive territory. For reasons that should become clear; however, it is likely that the argument will be more resonant when considered in relation to federations of a multinational nature.

2. Two of these three thinkers (Tocqueville and, particularly, Acton) have been used previously for the construction of a pro-federal argument in an influential article by Levy (2007). His approach and argument, however, differ in several important respects from my own use of these nineteenth century liberals. For while I merely seek inspiration, and thus make no claims of endorsement on behalf of my classical liberal interlocutors, Levy’s argument is more faithful to the original spirit of the authors. Thus, he ponders whether federalism might protect negative liberty against the much-feared interference of the central state. To the extent, therefore, that diversity is valued it is only for its role as an organisational principle of the sub-state units. As we shall see though, my argument secures a more central role and inherent value to diversity as ameliorating the conditions for the exercise of individual autonomy, conceived as a form of positive freedom. In this respect, my argument is more in line with recent developments in liberal thought, which recognise the importance to the individual of their social context (Margalit and Raz 1990, Kymlicka 1995).

3. The following distinction is partially inspired by Van Parijs (2011, pp. 176–178), who has himself borrowed the terminology from discussions of biodiversity.

4. For two recent examples from the UK see Siddique (2013) and Edwards (2013).

5. Although the direction of causality is less than clear, it remains interesting to note the findings of Khatapoush and Hallfors (2004) that the use of marijuana was perceived as less harmful by young people in California in the period directly following the drug’s legalisation for medical purposes.

6. The UK is not a ‘federation’ according to most definitions. However, the extensive system of devolved autonomy that Scots enjoy means that it would be covered by the broader understanding of ‘federalism’ outlined earlier in the paper. Moreover, and crucially for my purposes, the extensive competences of the Scottish Parliament include control over a distinct educational system, and are in general sufficient to ensure the presence of a plurality of deliberative spheres within the UK.

7. Source: ‘Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States’, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States. [Accessed 18 March 2014].

8. Nor should we assume that federal and non-federal features are entirely independent of one another. Thus, differences in regional religious belief may be partially attributable to the extent and nature of religious education provided within schools in different sub-units.

9. I thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this point.